Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2003 Special City Council MinutesMINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 *~******~~*~~~*~~*~~*~~~~~******~*~*~~~~*~*********~~~*~~***** CALL TO ORDER The Special City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Brinley at 3:35 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Brinley. INVOCATION Mayor Brinley led the meeting in a Moment of Silent Reflection. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Directar Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Finance Manager Magee, Information/ Communications Manager Dennis, Lake Operations Manager Kilroy, Planning Manager Villa, Public Works Manager Payne, Recreation/Tourism Manager Fazzio, City Treasurer Judziewicz and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad. Page Two - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 DISCUSSION ITEMS Final Parity Report -L.B. Hayhurst & Associates. (F:116.8) Mayor Brinley noted that the topic for discussion at this meeting would be the Hayhurst Study. City Manager Watenpaugh commented that this was a Special Council Meeting, so the Council was able to make a final recommendation, if they so wished. He indicated that the Budget meeting would follow this meeting. He noted that Lonnie Hayhurst was present to review the final phase of the Parity Study, as was negotiated as part of the Union Agreement. Lonnie Hayhurst, President, Hayhurst & Associates, reminded the Council that he had presented a list of comparable cities to them, as listed on Page 10 of the report; and the majority of the Council approved them as the market for the survey work. He also reminded the Council that when they were doing the survey they would be looking for titles, but also comparable work in comparable cities. He indicated that was the goal for the study and that was the report being presented today. He addressed the Executive Summary, and indicated that salaries were 33% above the median to 27% below the median far the market. He indicated that this variable was not unusual since salaries had not been compared over a long period of time, as the salaries tend to grow in different directions based on the City's needs. He stressed that the study sets the parity of the market at this point in time; and expressed his belief that based on some assumptions that was accurate. He recommended use of the median salaries as a basis for setting salaries; and noted that they tended to inflate or deflate based on the market. He advised that recommendations had been made for each class, as a baseline salary at which parity existed in the marketplace. He indicated that this information did not factor in things like growth of the community, ability to pay, community income levels, etc. He addressed Page 15 of the Study which showed median and mean salary steps, which was based on the assumptions made at the last meeting with the Council. He noted that there were some real extremes, but in general the rank and file Page Three - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 employees ended up being 4 to 7% behind the market; and some management fell above the market. He indicated that Page 19 included specific comments on salary recommendations. He explained internal considerations vs. market considerations and noted the internal alignment tables on Page 31. He further explained the separation between the various classes in each department. He noted the recommended separation between the Assistant City Manager and City Manager, and noted that it there was too much compaction, people did not have a reason to promote and didn't feel they were being appropriately paid for their responsibilities. He addressed Page 47 of the Study which provided detail on the various comparable agencies; and indicated that they showed where the City fell in a straight salary comparison for each of the classes. He noted that where there was no match, they showed "no comparable class", which might mean that it was divided differently or contracted out. He detailed the information collection process, and indicated that he was confident that the Study was a true reflection of the market for the agencies surveyed. He addressed the Benefit Comparison on Page 78, and clarified that it was not a total compensation analysis, because the information varies due to different rates and costs and the result would be highly skewed. He noted that instead they had provided great detail on each City's benefits. He indicated that there were a number of possible policy decisions the Council could make at this point. He indicated ihat at this point, he has found that most cities consider whether they want to go with the median, mean or set their own policy in regard to the market. He clarified that the Parity Study recommendations did not consider the City's ability to pay, rather determined what market the City was in currently. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that originally he had some issues with the Study, but he now understood the perspective. He explained his perspective, with regard to filling positions, from contract to full-time. He indicated that the City's market area was the I-15 corridor and staff had to hire new employees at the 3rd to Sth steps to gain qualified employees. He noted the working partnerships within the corridor and stressed that staff had been lost to the corridor including management and staf£ He indicated that Lake Elsinore was the 8`h largest City in the County, the 4th fastest growing in the County and the 3`d fastest growing in the Page Four - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 WRCOG service area. He suggested if one reviewed Temecula, Murrieta, Corona and Riverside, even the market baseline presented was below them all. He noted that the proposed Option 1 was below all but one City, and noted specific discrepancies between the cities. He stressed that the I-15 corridor was the labor market for competition, so when policy direction was considered he did not believe that Lake Elsinore was in a position to hire beginning engineers and others who were just starting out. He stressed the current growth rate, and indicated that staff was being hired at mid to upper levels to prevent 3 to 6 months of training someone without the experience. He noted the level of service delivery at the front counter and stressed the importance of determining the future direction for the City. He noted suggestions that the City could run with volunteers and entry-level people, but indicated that the business community would disagree. He stressed that an experienced staff was of benefit to the City. He detailed the baseline vs. option costs for implementation. Councilman Hickman questioned the populations of the other cities in the corridor. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Corona was about 125,000, Murrieta was about 65,000, Riverside was about 250,000 and Temecula was about 75,000 and growing. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that his interest in the study was to determine where the City stood, based on comments from the Community that the staff was being overpaid by large amounts of money. He indicated that he would have been happier to see other agencies in the market area used for comparisons, but the number did not show that staff was being overpaid, as a general rule. He noted that while a few were over and a few were under, he felt that this study had justified the past salary schedules. He noted that there might be a need to do some adjusting, but he felt vindicated that everyone was not being overpaid. Councilman Hickman noted that Mr. Schiffner was a retired City employee, and questioned the budget for Corona. City Manager Watenpaugh offered to find out the budget for each city, but Temecula was about $42 million. He noted that the issue was not the size of the budget, but the number of employees as opposed to the Page Five - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 rates. He noted the staffing level of the City Manager's Office in Temecula, noting that they paid more and hired more people; and stressed the need to compete for qualified staff. Councilman Hickman questioned the N/A's and comparison to private industry. NIr. Hayhurst indicated that they made a lot of calls to private industry, but were not successful in gaining information. He addressed the N/A's and indicated that they were a result of unique department structures. He reiterated that they were not just doing titles, and wanted to be sure they had true comparisons. Councilman Hickman questioned Recreation/Tourism and whether the verbiage was common. Mr. Hayhurst noted that Information/Communication also carried unique responsibilities. Councilman Hickman suggested that this was splitting hairs. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that two specific private engineering firms were called for information and would not provide it. Councilman Hickman indicated that his main concern was that pay included benefits. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner suggested that the size of the City, the number of residents or employees had nothing to do with salaries. He indicated that he did not want to look at the population and hire someone who was only 1/3`d as good as another City. He commented that the City did not have inferior police because the population was only 30,000, and stressed that the same salaries were paid all over the County and the same services were provided. He noted that while it might be a stretch to compare to Riverside, it was only 20 miles away and within the market area. He reiterated that the size of the City or Budget had nothing to do with the comparison. He concurred that some classifications were difficult, but suggested that there should be a system to determine where they fit with other classifications. Councilman Buckley addressed the methodology and noted Page 68 included no comparable class for Finance Manager, but noted that Murrieta had one. Mr. Hayhurst suggested that it might be in title only. Councilman Buckley indicated that the position did the same work for about $60,000. He questioned the frequency of no comparable class and the issue of wearing multiple, and stressed that he wanted to be sure it was not only by title. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed. Councilman Buckley addressed the situation of Public Information Page Six - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 Officer/Information Technology or City Clerk/Human Resources, and questioned if there was consideration of using a City with one of each and taking 50 to 60% of each and "smooshing" them to figure out a comparison. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that was not done for a number of reasons, and noted that it would get into how much of the time was spent doing each position. He explained that this had been attempted in the past, and it ended up with variable splits and a never ending battle. Councilman Buckley questioned Page 15, the N/A and Page 29 in the line marked reason where it said not comparable. Mr. Hayhurst clarified that if there was not internal market issues they used the external market. He explained that it ended up, if they found a Manager position and did a comparison and could find that it was so much above or below the market; they would take that position and put the Director so much above the position. He further explained internal alignment and market issues. He noted the narratives which addressed responsibilities beyond the norm. Councilman Buckley expressed understanding that the positions did other things, but questioned when it was not possible to compare, how they ended up staying the same. He indicated that part of the issue from the beginning was to get a handle on the total compensation package. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that he remembered discussion of doing a total compensation spread sheet, with the scope of service being to identify salaries, compensation and benefits to allow the Council to make decisions. He indicated that total compensation was a fictitious number, as the numbers vary greatly with no relationship to reality. Councilman Buckley indicated that the City paid more on average for health benefits. He questioned the vacation time, which is less on average than other cities, but inquired if it addressed the issue of every other Friday off. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that staff still worked an 80 hour pay period; and noted that this was a negotiated benefit. Councilman Buckley indicated that it was nice for the employees, but should be figured into the benefits. City Manager Watenpaugh stressed that it was still the same number of hours. Councilman Buckley indicated that it was the same number of hours, but an entire day off was clearly better than shorter days. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there was no additional cost for this arrangement. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that such a schedule was normal in many places, noting that the police and fire departments were even mare extreme schedule variables. Councilman Buckley clarified that he was not saying it was Page Seven - Special Meeting Minutes -June 17, 2003 bad, but indicated that it should be accounted for. Mr. Hayhurst disagreed, noting that it had never been reported. Councilman Buckley addressed the market and indicated that it would be his desire to stay "middle-ish". He inquired if the market surveys took into account how many people applied for open positions. Mr Hayhurst indicated they did not. Councilman Buckley noted that the new Administrative Services Director would be paid more than the previous one, and questioned how many applied. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there were about 118 applicants, with about 30 who were possibly qualified. Councilman Buckley inquired how many contract employees were offered full- time. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that they had to apply and go through the process. Councilman Buckley inquired what percentage of those applied. City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad indicated that about 3 out of 5 applied. Councilman Buckley questioned the internal grades, and inquired if it occurred to instead of raising the City Manager's pay, the Assistant City Manager's pay could be reduced. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that did occur to them, however the Assistant City Manager was below the market, and it did not make sense to lower it even more. Councilman Buckley commented that the survey did not include other benefits employees received, as other cities did not list cars, gas, etc. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed that the Study did not include every single benefit. Councilman Buckley inquired if Mr. Hayhurst believed a benefit was worth $8,000 to 10,000 per year, should be included. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that this interest had not been mentioned by Council, however he was requested to pull infarmation on the City Attorney salaries, which he did to assist the Council. Councilwoman Kelley apologized to Mr. Hayhurst for not being at the first Study Session, but indicated that she was surprised at the cities selected for comparison, as the only one in the corridor was Murrieta. She noted the number of employees lost to other cities. She indicated that it ultimately came down to what the Council envisioned the City to be like, and what level of professionalism and competency was desired. She indicated that the past reputation of the City was very poor, as it was not business friendly or professional, and was viewed as a training ground, but somewhere in the mid-1990's a concerted effort began to attract competent professionals; and the City has not continued to be a training ground. She stressed Page Eight - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 that the staff was consistent and stable, with the experience which provides a competitive edge. She further stressed that the employees have a history with the community, know the people, etc.; which is important for the community. She indicated that the primary reason for this Study was to be sure it was still possible to recruit a skilled work force; and it was already difficult to attract skilled people in some positions, such as engineers and planners. She stressed that the City was in a growth mode, like had never been seen before, so if it wanted to compete and move forward, it needed to be competitive with pay or people would be out the door. She indicated that the focus of the Council should stress that "you get what you pay for". She commented that she was surprised that the study found the salaries so much lower in some classification, particularly in light of the rhetoric about over paid staff; and noted that was generally not the case. She expressed disappointment that there were so many positions without comparisons, but with the previous budget cuts employees took on more and muddied the water. She suggested that the Council had to decide, without picking the findings apart, where they wanted Lake Elsinore to fall in the market. She stressed the need to make the adjustments to remain in the job market and attract a skilled labor force, noting that it was already difficult. Mike O'Neal, indicated that the study did not identify key employees, and questioned the labor market, the bargaining unit, and why there were no State and Federal agency comparisons. He also questioned a valid statistical medium, and why the median was only used part of the time. He questioned why the discrimination of "Y" rating was used and what private sector companies did not respond. He further questioned why there were so many cities without Assistant City Managers, Economic Development, Finance, eta He questioned why the I- 15 corridor had not been compared in the Study. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that while the cities were not included in the Study, staff did a comparison of those cities. He explained that the City had focused on other rapidly growing corridars such as Banning, with which there were some similarities. He noted that the standard job responsibilities were changed when the staff went from 79 to 45, and duties were doubled and tripled in some cases. He clarified that the City was paying for expertise, not hours. He also clarified that the baselines in the Page Nine - Special Meeting Minutes -June 17, 2003 Study were "median" high salaries; so based on this study, City staff was in the middle. He explained that when the original decision was made to go to the 9/80 program, it had to be sold to the employees; however the employees renegotiated the program. Mike O'Neal inquired why the median was used only part of the time. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that median comparisons were used wherever available. Mr. O'Neal inquired why there was discrimination in use of the "Y" ratings. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that he did not believe there was discrimination; however there was sometimes that suggestion when a woman was the incumbent. Mr. O'Neal suggested that he was using the term in a different sense. Bill Tito, questioned why the benefit packages were not included for Lake Elsinore. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that a summary sheet of the differences was included. Mr. Tito questioned why the benefit numbers were not added to salaries. Mr. Hayhurst reiterated that this was not a total compensation issue. Mr. Tito questioned the recommendation based on how much the City had vs. how much Hayhurst had not added. Tito really don't have a recommendation on how much to pay management. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that was outside the scope of the study. Edith Stafford, indicated that she didn't have the report, but had reviewed some of it. She questioned how the median was calculated, and suggested that it was not done properly. She suggested that there should be a formula for calculating the median. She also suggested that the Council review the study very carefully. Mr. Hayhurst clarified that the median was the middle number in any group of numbers, with 'h below and 'h above. Mrs. Stafford reiterated her request that the Council closely review the numbers and the formulation as the numbers were mismatched. She commented that there were too many "Not Applicables", and suggested that it was an excuse to not do something. Mayor Brinley commented that the reason had been explained. Mrs. Stafford indicated that she did not buy the explanation, and suggested that the report was not authentic. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Mr. Hayhurst had provided accurate, Page Ten - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 complete data, but some agencies are very reluctant to provide information. He noted that agencies like water districts or cities will generally provide ranges. He suggested that there was ample data for a decision. He indicated that the staff recommendation would be to do nothing, go with the baseline or choose an option. He indicated that if the Council took formal action it could be included in the budget and staff could proceed to comply with the MOU. He noted that management had received no merit raises, subject to completion of this study, while rank and file had received raises where possible. Mayor Brinley noted her conversation with City Manager Watenpaugh, and clarified that the benefit numbers were somewhat fictional; and neither the City nor Hayhurst had control over that. She reiterated the comments by Councilwoman Kelley, that if the Council wanted to have a good efficient staff, it was important to remain competitive. She noted that a lot of good staff inembers had been lost to the surrounding cities. She noted that she had lived here since the 1980's and there had been constant turnover; and stressed the importance of being competitive in the marketplace. She concurred that the Study had vindicated the City in some respects, particularly with the vicious rumors that everyone was being overpaid. She indicated that she was not fully in support of the comparison cities, but it had given the Council the means to find a happy medium to guide them. She commented that this was long needed information, which staff could use to set salary standards. She thanked Mr. Hayhurst for his time and efforts, and for attending this meeting to explain the findings. City Manager Watenpaugh reiterated the thanks to Mr. Hayhurst for his work, and noted the changes he had seen in staff and the progress of the cities. He clarified that he was not looking for more money, but stressed that the City needed to be in the position to hire staf£ He indicated that it would be his desire that the Council look at Option 1 to move staff to the nearest position which is closest to where they are currently. He clarified that this would not mean people were going to the top step. He indicated that staff worked hard from the top down, and noted that he arrives 20 minutes early and a number of other staff are already in office as early at 630 a.m. He indicated that the Council needed to be proud of getting out of Page Eleven - Special Meeting Minutes -June 17, 2003 litigation; and noted that did not happen with an attorney out of high school. He noted that the special district comparison showed they were the highest paid of any of the comparisons. He suggested that the Council needed to look at a vision for the Community. Mayor Brinley noted that some major box retailers were looking at Lake Elsinare, and growth will be seen in the next three to five years. She stressed that Lake Elsinore needed qualified staff to be able to be competitive with them. City Attorney Leibold offered to answer questions, but noted that she had warked in her capacity since 1997; and has in practice worked with 50 public agencies. She indicated that the caliber of the staff was equal to the staff of any other City she had warked with, including the issues. She noted that the demands and sophistication exceeded those of other jurisdictions. She stressed the issues of Baseball, the Diamond, the Storm, the MSHCP, banking issues, real property, RDA issues, the Campground, the Lake, etc.; and stressed that the myriad and breadth of issues presented to this staff were remarkable. She noted that she had worked with large cities such as Anaheim, Riverside, and Long Beach; and the transactions in those communities were generally less complex than the issues faced here. City Treasurer Judziewicz noted the quality of life issues in Lake Elsinore; and indicated that he intended to live for the long run. He further indicated that he wanted to see qualified people on the staff, and concurred that it was necessary to pay right. He commented that he did not want the Council to miss the vision of upgrading the City, just to save costs; and stressed the need to pay for quality and be competitive. He indicated that the City was pulling from Norco and Corona, and if the Council wanted to make the City a good place, it was necessary to spend the money. He commented that City Manager Watenpaugh was paid a lot of money, but he could get more in the private sector. He indicated that staff worked hard, and most areas did not look too far out of line. He stressed the need to be prepared for future growth. Mayor Brinley concurred that the Council had a vested interest in the City and wanted to see it grow. She concurred with the need to be competitive to draw personnel. Page Twelve - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 Mr. Hayhurst asked to be excused from the meeting. Mayor Brinley thanked Mr. Hayhurst for his time and effort. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that he had already suggested options for the Council to consider, but expressed hopes that they would provide a vision of support for the future. He expressed appreciation to City Treasurer Judziewicz for his comments, and noted that the next few years would bring growth no matter who was at the City. He indicated that new officials would benefit from this Council's actions, and noted that the next few years would be very beneficial for the community. He commented that there would be upcoming big announcements, based on long term discussions, and recommended consideration of Option 1. He noted that it would only put staff above one of the four cities surveyed, and stressed the need for competitive rates. Councilman Hickman questioned the cost of Option L City Manager Watenpaugh detailed the associated costs with Baseline increasing costs by $153,561, Option 1 increasing costs by $181,185, Option 2 increasing costs by $170,512 and Option 3 increasing costs by $163,108. He detailed the personnel costs in the budget. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that it would be about a 5% increase for Option 1. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed it was about 5% of the general employee budget, but police and fire figures also went up considerably. Councilman Hickman addressed the 2.5% retirement and social security and commented on the increase in retirement money. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that this was a negotiated benefit, for which the employees gave up a cost of living raise for two years as a trade-off. He indicated that with regard to the social security costs, the employees had nothing to say about it. Councilman Hickman commented that other cities did not offer social security; and expressed concern for the constituents. He indicated that for the money, quality people should be obtained and questioned why it was necessary to tell staff to pick up shopping carts, pick up trash and repair potholes. He noted the volume of calls he receives and noted the concerns for the constituents being served, if they don't see Page Thirteen - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 the services. He indicated that while it was relatively little money, this was where management had to show the people they were being taken care of. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he had been on the Council for five years and received very few calls from anyone. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it came down to priorities on where the Council wanted the time spent, and setting policy. He indicated that staff was happy to shift the highest priorities, but noted that the citizens were also the ones throwing the trash, eta Councilman Hickman indicated that it was not City residents throwing the trash and stressed the problem areas. Mayor Brinley noted the Options presented and indicated that Option 1 was preferred by the City Manager. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner suggested accepting the report for information, as it was very informative. He reiterated that he was interested in knowing if staff was being overpaid, and from what he saw they were not. He indicated that based on the information, it became the responsibility of the Council to make adjustments. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER TO ACCEPT THE STUDY FOR INFORMATION AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DECISION AT A FUTURE TIME ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITIES. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the future time, in light of the current Budget process. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he did not want to make the decision right now. Mayor Brinley suggested the selection of an option, so it could be included in the Budget. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner suggested the least expensive option. Mayor Brinley requested clarification of the Options. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Option 3 was less expensive in the short term, but more in the long term. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that if a decision was necessary, he would choose to accept the report for information and approve Option 1. Councilwoman Kelley inquired if an Option were approved today, if it would be incorporated into the Page Fourteen - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 Budget at the next Council meeting. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY TO ACCEPT THE REPORT FOR INFORMATION AND APPROVE OPTION 1 AS PRESENTED. Councilman Hickman questioned the costs for Option 3. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the options and the related increments. Councilman Hickman suggested that staff would be foolish to leave. MOVED BY BUCKLEY, SECONDED BY HICKMAN, A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STUDY AND OPTION 1, EXCEPT FOR THOSE AT THE MANAGEMENT LEVEL. THE FOREGOING MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2 TO 3 WITH BRINLEY, KELLEY AND SCHIFFNER CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE. Councilwoman Kelley expressed concern that the substitute motion would be singling people out and she did not agree with the approach. Mayor Brinley concurred that this would be pitting Management against Rank and File. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner suggested that the substitute motion tended to indicate a vendetta against Management and he did not approve of that. Councilman Buckley questioned merit raises. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that rank and file had received merit increases if they were earned and entitled to them, but management had been on hold pending the findings of the study; so there had been no management increases or cost of living increases. CouncilmaxA Buckley questioned merit increases for the City Manager. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that one had never been received. City Attorney Leibold noted the pending motion. The motion was confirmed as: MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY KELLEY TO ACCEPT THE REPORT FOR INFORMATION AND APPROVE OPTION 1 AS Page Fifteen - Special Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2003 PRESENTED. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 WITH BUCKLEY AND HICKMAN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. ADJOURNMENT THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:16 P.M. PAMELA BRIIIQLEY, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE